! Art Against Bush !'s topics - tribe.net

Did RAND Corporation Pen the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act?

Alexander — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:13:03 GMT

Did RAND Corporation Pen the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act?
Published on Friday, November 23, 2007.

AddThis Social Bookmarking Widget

By Kurt Nimmo

According to Jessica Lee of Indypendent and Kamau Karl Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was penned with plenty of help from the RAND Corporation.

“Rep. Jane Harman, Democrat from California, has had a lengthy relationship with the Rand Corporation,” Lee tells Democracy Now, although she was unable to determine if RAND wrote the bill. On the 12th anniversary of the OKC bombing, Rep. Harman, as chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, introduced the bill in the House of Representatives.
“The ‘Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007' seeks to address the roots causes of radicalization, and would establish a grant program to provide funds to States to foster badly needed vertical information sharing from the Intelligence Community to the local level and from local sources to state and federal agencies,” explains Harman’s website. “It also creates a Center of Excellence for the Prevention of Radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism to examine the social, criminal, political, psychological and economic roots of domestic terrorism and to propose solutions, and promotes international collaboration on strategies to combat radicalization."

Franklin mentions Brian Michael Jenkins, an “expert” on “terrorism, counterinsurgency, and homeland security,” according to RAND. Jenkins is “someone who helped the United States in counterinsurgency measures in Vietnam,” states Franklin. “In addition to that, he wrote a book, and in his own book” Jenkins declared that “in their international campaign, the jihadists will seek common ground with leftists, anti-American and anti-globalist forces, who will in turn see radical Islam comrades against a mutual foe.”

In short, according to Kamau Karl Franklin, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is more about domestic political activism than Islamic terrorism, although it appears Jenkins—and neocons such as the former Marxist David Horowitz—are attempting establish a link between the two, an absurdity at best, as the best way to discredit both the antiwar and patriot movements.

According to a Center for Constitutional Rights factsheet, RAND is a key player in the “domestic terrorism” prevention effort detailed in this draconian bill. A RAND study “Trends in Terrorism,” Chapter 4 on “homegrown terrorism,” advocates “special attention to environmentalist, Anti-globalization activist and anarchists as potentially new terrorist in the making.”

Not surprisingly, RAND is intimately connected to the global elite and the military-industrial-intelligence complex: “The interlocks between the trustees at Rand, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were so numerous that the Reece Committee listed them in its report (two each for Carnegie and Rockefeller, and three for Ford). Ford gave one million dollars to Rand in 1952 alone, at a time when the chairman of Rand was simultaneously the president of Ford Foundation,” notes SourceWatch (Rene Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence, p65-66). “Two-thirds of Rand’s research involves national security issues. This is divided into Project Air Force, the Arroyo Center (serving the needs of the Army), and the National Defense Research Institute (providing research and analysis for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the defense agencies).”

As Lee Rogers notes, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, in its effort to flush out “terrorists,” including those opposed to the sort of globalism supported by Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations, will perform an end-run around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The bill “states in the first subsection that in general the efforts to defeat thought crime shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of the United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. How does this protect constitutional rights if they use vague language such as in general that prefaces the statement? This means that the Department of Homeland Security does not have to abide by the Constitution in their attempts to prevent so called homegrown terrorism.”

This bill is completely insane. It literally allows the government to define any and all crimes including thought crime as violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Obviously, this legislation is unconstitutional on a number of levels and it is clear that all 404 representatives who voted in favor of this bill are traitors and should be removed from office immediately. The treason spans both political parties and it shows us all that there is no difference between them. The bill will go on to the Senate and will likely be passed and signed into the law by George W. Bush. Considering that draconian legislation like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act have already been passed, there seems little question that this one will get passed as well. This is more proof that our country has been completely sold out by a group of traitors at all levels of government.

“With overwhelming bipartisan support, Rep. Jane Harman’s ‘Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act’ passed the House 404-6 late last month and now rests in Sen. Joe Lieberman’s Homeland Security Committee. Swift Senate passage appears certain,” write Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson for the Baltimore Sun. “Not since the ‘Patriot Act’ of 2001 has any bill so threatened our constitutionally guaranteed rights.”

Harman’s “proposed commission is a menace through its power to hold hearings, take testimony and administer oaths, an authority granted to even individual members of the commission—little Joe McCarthys—who will tour the country to hold their own private hearings. An aura of authority will automatically accompany this congressionally authorized mandate to expose native terrorism.”

Ms. Harman’s proposal includes an absurd attack on the Internet, criticizing it for providing Americans with “access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda,” and legalizes an insidious infiltration of targeted organizations. The misnamed “Center of Excellence,” which would function after the commission is disbanded in 18 months, gives the semblance of intellectual research to what is otherwise the suppression of dissent.

While its purpose is to prevent terrorism, the bill doesn’t criminalize any specific conduct or contain penalties. But the commission’s findings will be cited by those who see a terrorist under every bed and who will demand enactment of criminal penalties that further restrict free speech and other civil liberties. Action contrary to the commission’s findings will be interpreted as a sign of treason at worst or a lack of patriotism at the least.

While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates “thought police,” it defines “homegrown terrorism” as “planned” or “threatened” use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of “political or social objectives.” That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it.

As Shaffer and Robinson note, examples of “resulting crackdowns on such protests include the conviction and execution of anarchists tied to Chicago’s 1886 Haymarket Riot.” Additionally, we might add that the FBI’s COINTELPRO—targeting civil rights, antiwar, and national liberation movements—may serve as a template for “insidious infiltration of targeted organizations.” Although the official history would have us believe COINTELRPO was shut down in the 1970s, events since that time reveal the government is still in the business of illegally going after Americans who exercise their constitutional right to petition the government. For more on these recent events, see Brian Glick’s COINTELPRO Revisited: Spying and Disruption.

Thus it makes perfect sense that the corporate media—compromised by the CIA under Operation Mockingbird beginning in the 1950s—would employ the likes of Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly to characterize the antiwar, truth and patriot movements—and even supporters of Ron Paul—as potentially violent advocates of “domestic terrorism.” No doubt, in the weeks and months ahead, we should expect more such propaganda as Harman’s “proposed commissions,” little more than federally mandated inquisitions, get up to speed.
Finally, as noted above, it is only a matter of time before the so-called Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 becomes law. The bill has been referred to the Senate where it awaits scrutiny from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and is almost certain to pass.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/231107RAND.htm

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 0 replies

Republicans suck! Suck, suck, suck!

Yul — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:28:43 GMT

http://youtube.com/watch?v=66COez-8jpk

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 0 replies

The growing concerns of intellectual people about WTC and 9/11 Conspiracy possibilities...

J Timothy — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 06:08:54 GMT

Celsius 9-11

Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

By Dave Heller

While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try. We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence surrounding 9-11.

While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us.

And these inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-down of our immense military arsenal (for over an hour and a half) to the small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon. There was Bush's bizarre, uninterrupted photo op in a Florida elementary school, and then there is the matter of the remains of Flight 93 being scattered over eight miles of Pennsylvania farmland, a fact which suggests the plane may have been shot down. The official story seems wrong on all of these points.

But the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex.

How I First Began to Question: WTC7

The World Trade Center (WTC) contained seven buildings. The Twin Towers were called buildings One (WTC1) and Two (WTC2). They collapsed in truly astounding fashion, but the event that caused me first to question the official story about the events of 9-11 was viewing videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).

If you've forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge steel supports.

Viewing the Collapse of WTC7

The 9-11 commemorative videos produced by PBS and CNN are best. Both clearly show WTC7's implosion.

Lower resolution Internet movies are also available.
WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.

6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?

Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out your stopwatch.

What About Towers One and Two?

The odd, swift collapse of WTC7 made me reconsider the Twin Towers and how they fell. As I had with WTC7, I first studied video footage available on the web. Then I acquired and watched a DVD of the collapses, frame by frame.

What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?

Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed “pancaking,” which is the official theory.

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.

As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I'll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.

This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction — with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance — that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air — the "pancake" theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn't exist — if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse — just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren't hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance?

Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't.

And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards.

Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?

What About the Fires?

The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.

It's also odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.

According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”

Aside from its startling nonchalance, this statement makes a rather profound assumption. Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.

This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.

Did the FEMA investigators not think to ask the New York City Fire Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could have caused the astounding, historical collapse? This would seem to be an elementary step in any investigation about a fire. Instead, they chose to leave the cause of the collapse "unknown."

Conclusion

So if the science in this article is correct (none of it goes beyond the tenth grade level), then we know that the floors of the three WTC buildings were not pancaking but were falling simultaneously. We also know that fire is an insufficient explanation for the initiation of the collapse of the buildings.

Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?

There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously — and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition.

A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes — each just before one of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three steel skyscrapers — two of which were struck by planes and one of which wasn't — all collapsed in essentially the same way.

Ongoing Questions

But having established that all three WTC towers had to have been assisted in their failures, I asked myself, Who could have planted the explosives to blow up the buildings in a controlled demolition? Could fundamentalist Muslim fanatics have gotten the plans for those buildings, engineered the demolition, and then gotten into them to plant the explosives?

This seemed improbable. And after learning that WTC7 housed the FBI, CIA, and the OEM, it seemed impossible. Then I thought, Why would terrorists engineer a building to implode? Wouldn’t they want to cause even more damage to the surrounding buildings and possibly create more havoc and destruction from debris exploding away from the building? And if they'd planted explosives in the buildings, why would they have bothered hijacking and flying planes into them? Perhaps WTC7 was demolished to destroy evidence that would answer these questions. To this day, I don't know. But this is how I began to question the official story about 9-11.

Recently I learned that President Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself. I also discovered that Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200 million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-11 — yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks! He stood to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment. Talk about motive.

In conclusion, I'll repeat myself. None of the many 9-11 researchers can definitively say exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago. But any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us. And the fact is, most of the available 9-11 evidence points to at least some level of government complicity or foreknowledge.

Please, read more for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Most of all, do not buy the double-speak that visible politicians and the media use to discount any question about 9-11. Clearly, there are no “conspiracy theories” surrounding 9-11. The official story itself affirms that there was obviously some kind of conspiracy. It's just a question of which conspiracy occurred. We know it wasn't mere coincidence that several hijackers happened to be on several different airplanes and happened to hijack them at the exact same time and happened to pick the World Trade Center as a target. The real question is, “Who was involved in the conspiracy?”

(Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.)

Something is rotten in Denmark, ladies and gentlemen!!!

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 2 replies

The Road To Guantanamo

J Timothy — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:19:55 GMT

Rent it and watch it:
The Road To Guantanamo

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Guantanamo-Riz-Ahmed/dp/B000HOL67U/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8187248-0479803?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1187414094&sr=1-1

while you are at it: Who Killed The Electric Car?
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-Electric-Martin-Sheen/dp/B000I5Y8FU/re

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 0 replies

The war against terrorism that is making U.S. into terrorists...

J Timothy — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:10:16 GMT

Extremism in the defence of liberty
Paul Robinson says that some well-respected hawks are threatening civilisation by advocating terror tactics in the war on terror ‘I don’t know what effect these men will have upon the enemy,’ said the Duke of Wellington of his troops, ‘but, by God, they terrify me.’ I feel much the same way about some of those who purport to be on our side in the so-called Global War on Terror (GWoT).

It is not just that these people want to drag us into perpetual war. It is how they want us to wage their war that causes me alarm. A concerted effort is underway to persuade us to abandon our civil liberties; to lock up people indefinitely without trial, torture them, and execute them; and if we can’t get who we want, to target their families, neighbours and other innocents to terrorise them into surrendering. In short, the call is that in order to defeat terrorism we must become terrorists ourselves.

Those making these demands can no longer be ignored. We have to expose them, confront them and defeat them. Already in this country we have David Blunkett with his plans for ‘pre-emptive detention’, secret trials and the indefinite imprisonment of suspects on evidence which the Home Office has admitted might come from torture in other countries. The slippery slope from Blunkettism to state terrorism is but a short one, and if we do not start the fight against it now, we may find we have lost already.

There is, alas, a seriously psychopathic tendency on the loose, and its influence is growing, especially in the United States. Take, for instance, Ralph Peters, author of ‘Civilian casualties: no apology needed’ (Wall Street Journal, July 2002). Peters is a highly respected commentator on security issues in the United States. He writes regularly for the journals of the US military, and is read widely by both those who make policy and those who carry it out. The GWoT, in his eyes, is a war ‘to exterminate human monsters’. Anybody in any way associated with them, even if not by their own will, is a legitimate target. If you can’t get the terrorists, Peters argues, get their families. ‘We Americans’, he writes, ‘must be willing to pursue the terrorists through their relatives. ... If you cannot kill your enemy, threaten what he holds dear.’ Only ‘outdated convention’ holds us back from the necessary ruthlessness.

Others take the argument further. Frances Kamm, a professor of philosophy at Harvard University, has been doing the lecture circuit in America and England, promoting the view that it may be legitimate to target non-combatants directly. She argues that if an attack planned against a military target is likely to kill, say, 50 innocent people in collateral damage, you might as well just kill 40 of them directly. What’s more, if it will help to terrorise others, you should kill them ‘in a particularly horrible way’. You can then congratulate yourself on having saved ten lives! Better yet, you are only allowed to ‘terror-kill’, as she calls it, as many innocent people as you could have killed anyway. So if you are a powerless refugee, you are not allowed to kill any, but if you are a great power, you can kill hundreds of thousands. Best of all, if their country is engaged in what you deem to be an unjust war, then they are merely enjoying ‘life they could only have had as an ill-gotten gain from a great injustice’, and you are positively urged to kill them at once and put a stop to it.

Kamm’s commendation of legalised state terrorism is mirrored in numerous other examples. Perhaps the best known is the proposal by the famous lawyer Alan Dershowitz to legalise judicial questioning under torture. Dershowitz recommends the insertion of sterilised needles under the fingernails to produce ‘excruciating pain’. ‘Pain is not the worst thing in the world,’ he says. ‘You get over it.’

One might argue that extremists such as Peters, Kamm and Dershowitz are unimportant, as they exist on the fringes and have no effect on actual policy. Such complacency would be a mistake. The only way to prevent their arguments from gaining ground is to fight them. If they become accepted within the spectrum of normal opinion, they will recruit more and more adherents. In addition, these people are not in fact without influence. Methods of warfare once considered unacceptable are now common practice, ‘targeted killings’ and ‘torture-lite’ being the clearest examples.

The more often these views are expressed as normal, the less opposition they seem to generate. A journalist who attended a meeting at which Dershowitz suggested legalising torture noted that the really shocking thing was that not one person in the audience replied that it might be wrong. Even in this country, some no longer consider such views unacceptable. Respectable universities would think twice before inviting someone like David Irving to speak, but Oxford, London and others welcome Professor Kamm to spread her views that it is fine to ‘terror-kill’ the innocent as long as you ‘have the capacity to harm them as badly in some other way or for some other reason’. The boundaries of respectability have rarely seemed so fragile.

Bit by bit, these ideas have an effect. Dr Davida Kellogg, who has taught military ethics to American officer cadets for many years, told a conference at the Royal Military College of Canada that it was becoming increasingly difficult to persuade America’s future officers to treat the other side with respect. She confronts, she says, ‘intense and sustained resistance’ to expectations that they behave ‘chivalrously’ towards civilians. The enemy are seen as beyond the pale; the normal rules do not apply to them.

The British journalist Oliver Poole, embedded with American forces during the invasion of Iraq, noted this phenomenon in practice during last year’s invasion of Iraq. In his new book Black Knights, he states that the Americans he was with considered Iraqis ‘barely human’. The protection of American soldiers, he reports, was always a much higher priority than the protection of the lives of Iraqi civilians. Faced with gunfire from an Iraqi building, the response was, ‘Anyone still in that building isn’t a civilian.’ The same attitude prevails today. An Iraqi life, or an Afghan life, or the life of any civilian at the receiving end of ‘Coalition’ military action, is clearly not worth the same as an American or British life.

Thus, in a rabid, but sadly not untypical, response to the murder of four Americans in Fallujah, the journalist Joseph Farah urged us ‘to make an example’ out of the Iraqi city. ‘We may need to flatten Fallujah,’ he wrote. ‘We may need to destroy it. We may need to grind it, pulverise it and salt the soil. ... Here’s an opportunity to show that it doesn’t pay to resort to barbarism and terrorism.’ (Irony is not Farah’s strong point.)

The American army didn’t go quite as far as Farah suggested — in response to the four murders it has killed a mere 600 people in Fallujah, and that does, I suppose, show restraint of a sort. But it is hardly an advertisement for the discriminate and proportionate use of force. Since today we have the technical means to reduce collateral damage, and since we justify our wars in terms of protecting the innocent, we have a special obligation to take every measure to do so. We will not be fulfilling that obligation if we continue to shed blood on the scale of recent weeks in Iraq. If we cannot govern the Iraqis without killing them, we should leave their country immediately.

Actually, withdrawing might be the best thing we could do for them. Far from provoking civil war, the sight of us running from a combined Shia-Sunni offensive could provide Iraqis with a unifying myth of self-liberation to bind the country together and enable them to face the future with confidence. If we are not willing to leave, though, we must at least resist the calls to abandon restraint.

Despite Tony Blair’s bizarre rantings, terrorism does not pose an ‘existential’ threat to our society, as Simon Jenkins rightly pointed out in these pages a few weeks ago. Our civilisation is under threat, but not from terrorists, whose power is extremely limited. Only we ourselves can destroy the values that we cherish and which make us great. We must hold on to the principles that guarantee our superiority — our respect for the innocent, for due process and for justice. If we stand firm, we can never be defeated.

(Paul Robinson is assistant director of the Centre for Security Studies at the University of Hull.)

-Uum, not sure about that over-patriotic ending, but, essentially...it is not a bad article.-

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 0 replies

Keith Olbermann: Bush resign!

knewkevlar — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:03:03 GMT

Incredible! And about friggin time someone put it so perfectly!
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/03/256978.aspx

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 0 replies

contribute

diymia — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:19:56 GMT

diy:mia is the product of people made anxious by passive one way media, people who question mass production and its impersonal interaction, people both drawn and hostile to the popular culture surrounding them. It is about finding modes of creative expression and participation in a self-conscious and self-absorbed world. We strive to transform our commodity infested culture into a sensual, collectively generated, ever-changing experience obtained through returning the tools of creation, distribution, communication, and collaboration into the hands of any person willing to use them. We believe that the creation and publication of one's own design is the practice of free society, the right and obligation of a culture of interaction not merely consumption. We make, share, discuss, improvise, remix, mutate and add to the world around us. We ask you to do the same.

For more information on how to participate visit www.myspace.com/diymia
And please, pass it along.

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 0 replies

presidential directive at whitehouse.gov gives Bush imperial powers

Alexander — Tue, 22 May 2007 17:41:31 GMT

presidential directive at whitehouse.gov gives Bush imperial powers

Just heard about this presidential directive from their own website. This means any event that is considered a disruption of the nation or its normal routine (from the mega-quake in Cascadia to the even a computer virus) then Mr Bush can declare this emergency with 90s imperial rule. They can even take over Native American Reservations or anything else deemed important for military stragedy. Add to this this week's ruling on environmentalism as possibly ecoterrorism.

One news report with the actualy whitehouse.gov announcement:

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
By Matthew Rothschild
May 18, 2007

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”

http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

The White House released it on May 9.

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.

The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”

It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”

This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”

The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.

But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial
branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”

Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”

The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.

She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.

As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”

The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.

“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”

The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”

from http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

___ actual presidential directive from whitehouse.gov:

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

White House News

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of

the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National

Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and

responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall

continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of

the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between

and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing

on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and

assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an

official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate

support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its

agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 0 replies

Launch May with activism.... Cascadia Spring

Alexander — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:02:29 GMT

There are two current political events happening that has had a call out for banner drops and stenciling: MayDay adnd a Day for calling Impeachment of the current Fascists in power (below are two posts on them). Added to this is the anniverary of the creation of the Oregon Independence Government back in 1843 at Champoeg. It would be nice to see a week of Cascadian activism in honor of that moment in time when the Oregon Country (bascially most of the bioregion of Cascadia) briefly was an independant country (third post below).

CASCADIA NOW OR WA BC UNITED . FREE (banner drop)
http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2007/04/358162.jpg

WEDNESDAYS SPRING TRAINING: STENCIL AND BANNER MAKING! GET READY FOR MAYDAY!!!
author: Mb e-mail:e-mail: mb(at)resist(dot)ca
Wiether you just wanna accesorize your affinity, or play with the spray this ones for the artist in you.

This is a spring training workshop. "SPRING TRAINING" is a month of workshops focused on educating and empowering the broad community to act for social justice!
The fun never stops at blue heron infoshop

Wednesday at 7PM
in the blue heron infohop (formerly the SAO, GCC 34, Reed College)

Wednesday's spring training workshop! Get ready for mayday! Or just plain "accesorize" your affinity with some rockin banners and signs! Sound fun? Well check this workshop out!

STENCIL MAKING WORKSHOP

Thomas will be doing a workshop on DIY stencil fun. Make shirts, make friends, remake the boring-as-fuck corporate aesthetic! All materials will be provided, just bring your beautiful selves and some dirty clothes.

This is a spring training workshop. "SPRING TRAINING" is a month of workshops focused on educating and empowering the broad community to act for social justice!

--------------------------------

Stick around the basement of GCC cause after the workshop...

ADELIT@S, NICKTAB, AND FLY THE COOP JUG BAND
WEDNESDAY-8pm-PING PONG ROOM (down the hall from blue heron)

Mexican folk influenced punk outfit Adelit@s is playing a show Wednesday
in the Ping Pong room with acoustic rocker Niktab, and the old timey
favorites, Fly the Coop Jug Band, starting at 8pm. This is a benefit for the Sin Fronteras paper that we'll be printing for Mayday. There is also a show at the Portland Collective Housing (PCH House) on Saturday, April 28, with Adelit@s, Rag and Bone Men, Smile Whiskey, and DJ Dimon (of Gogol Bordello). If you're going to miss them on Saturday, hear them for free on Wednesday.

Come find out about the amazing work Sin Fronteras Portland is doing and hear some kick ass music.

Sin Fronteras Mission Statement
Sin Fronteras Portland formed to confront the growing violence, and economic disparity caused by the U.S./Mexico Border (and all national borders) and U.S. Imperialism. The movement for immigrant rights and border justice has been focused on pandering to politicians, and trying to "reform" blatantly racist laws. We do not believe white supremacy can be "reformed". Where we see the left in the United States has failed, we seek to participate in the building of popular social movements towards economic and social justice; here in the belly of the beast.

Portland Sin Fronteras is committed to bringing the popular resistance struggles of Latin America across the U.S. border into the heart of the global capitalist empire. We seek to educate, mobilize and empower people by disseminating the radical ideas and culture from these struggles. We seek to inspire and build with others, towards taking action in our lives and our communities against racism, militarization, liberalism and build our vision of another world. A world driven by needs and not profit, a world where freedom of movement is about people not global financial interests.

Our focus as a group lies in building and understanding the border and in fighting white supremacy; and our aim is to combat capitalism as a system of domination and to link the anticapitalist struggles of Latin America toour own struggles here at home.
LIBERTAD PARA TOD@S!

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/04/358263.shtml

May 5 this Sat on I-205 Freeway Overpass Banner Blitz
author: Joe Anybdy (reposting) e-mail:e-mail: iam@joe-anybody.com
Reposting From An Email I Just Recieved
Sounds Like A Good Idea To Me
"I-205 Freeway Banner Blitz"
MAY 5th ANTI-WAR PROTESTS

PLANNED ON SERIES OF I-205/CLACKAMAS OVERPASSES

Well, there we were, "Shivering in the rain again", yesterday at our
anti-war protest on Sunnyside Road at I-205. We had our family of
four on one side of the overpass with 'BRING THEM HOME", "END THE
WAR', AND "HONK TO END THE WAR". On the other side of the overpass
was about 5 from the PDX911TRUTH group, with their '9/11 WAS AN INSIDE
JOB"; "BUSH LIED", AND "GOOGLE WTC7". It was very effective to have
one side focused on one message for each of our groups.

There weren't alot of us out there. But, the reactions from passersby
was very reactive -- lots of honking with thumbs up and peace -- and
lots of "the bird". A wadded up bag was thrown at David's back.
But by far, we usually get 10 to 1 honks in favor of our protest.

But, we need more folks out there with us -- on a regular basis. It
is only one hour a week. Would you please commit to being there with
us? Bring family and friends. Bribe them with a treat afterwards!
It's a great way to release pent up stress about the war. You feel
great after doing it. Plus, you meet new friends! Shivering in the
rain is nothing compared to what our troops are doing in Iraq. We do
this in our support for them, to get them home!

But, on May 5th, we are going to need an extra lot of people. We're
planning to do several overpasses in a row -- BAM! BAM! BAM! with
giant "SUPPORT THE TROOPS - BRING THEM HOME!" and 'UNJUST WAR IS
MURDER', 'IMPEACH BUSH!" etc. -- our message will not be ignored
this way. So come out to one of these protest sites along I-205, near
Clackamas, on Saturday, May 5th at 1pm-2pm. Bring large signs. You
can print out super large letters on a 8-1/2 x 11" paper (one letter
per page), cut them out and paste to a white or black painted
cardboard. Then, seal it with a sprayed or brushed on lacquer. Or
paint huge letters onto a large sheet and drape over the fence (not
over traffic, though). Remember not to obstruct vehicle or pedestrian
traffic in any way.

Protests at these I-205 Exits, between 1pm-2pm

Johnson Creek (need contact person)
SE Otty Road (need contact person)
SE Monterey Avenue @ I-205 (Keith Humphrey wayimp@yahoo.com)
SE Sunnyside (David Brownlow 503-307-3851 dave@davebrownlow.com and
Tim Titrud 503-701-3481mailto: 503-701-3481SixLeaves@aol.com )
SE Sunnybrook (Mark Pritchard 503-631-2507 harpy@ccwebster.net)

Thank you!

Suzanne Brownlow
Believers Against The War
http://www.believersagainstthewar.org/

homepage: homepage: http://www.joe-anybody.com

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/04/358158.shtml

May 2nd 1843 Founders Day Champoeg
author: Ecotopian Yeti
May 2nd marks Founders Day which in 1843 was the first western style democracy west of the Rockies. Maybe for Cascadians this should mark a day to honor our Bioregion. Today Founders Day is honored on May 6th with events at Champoeg State Park

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cascadian_Bioregionalism/

For many Cascadians the first days of May should hold a value for several different reasons. For those conscious of labour movements (workers and the politally left) May Day was the international workers day marked with historical tragedies. This should be a history everyone should learn and honor those that fought and still fight for the rights and safety of all of us. For those Cascadians who honor various religious or spiritual paths associated with changing seasons and Nature then May Day marks an ancient holiday often celebrated as Beltaine. Also the day following May Day should have historical signifigance for Cascadians, Oregonians and the people of the various states and provinces that were the Old Oregon County. May 2nd marks the anniversary of "Founders' Day" the day in 1843 when European and mixed settlers in the French Prairie (within the Willamette Valley) at town of Champoeg voted to create the first independent western style democratic government. Those dedicated to preserving American national mythology about those events often simply claim it was an election decide on whether the Oregon Country should join the USA. The reality as in many cases with nation-state mythology is that the situation was far more complex that Amerikan nationalists would have people believe. Almost half voted against formation of an independent government for various reasons. For some because they were employed by the Hudson Bay Company that already managed for British citizens (including French Canadians and Metis) juridical matters in the region. For some it was fear that the US Americans were quickly spreading across North America using Anglo-American immigration to change the political landscape and therefore challenge any and all other residence of the region (Texas, California and the rest of the Mexican Cession where in the process of Amerikanization at the time). Some voted in favor of the formation of a government because of the lack of legal status for some residents that migrated from the US (the Ewing Young case was the prime legal case for that reason). Others voted for establishment of a government with the idea of a Republic of the Pacific in mind independent of the US (Osborne Russell even ran for the first Provisional Governor position in 1845 from the Independents stance). Thomas Jefferson himself sent the Corp of Discovery as a scientific exploration and deplomatic mission to the lands west of the Stony Mountains (the Rockies) not as US Amerikan national mythology suggests as exploring future conquest or annexation, but originally Jefferson envisioned the region as a future Republic of the Pacific independent and on its own path to a parallel democratic tradition. It was American expansionists like president Polk with a the campaign slogan "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" and American nationalist journalist John Louis O'Sullivan with his concept of Divine American Imperialism in the concept of "Manifest Destiny" that drove the idea that the Oregon Country was the "property" of American Empire. Of course all this ignored what Native People and other residents thought in the region.

In Chinook Jargon the land west of the Rockies was called Chinook Illahee meaning land of the Chinook Jargon Speakers.

Using historical and civil events to deconstruct our shared history maybe one method to getting the meme out about Cascadia.

Unfortunately today the park system does not celebrate Founders Day on its origianl May 2nd, but does honor that historic event on May 6th at Champoeg (near Wilsonville).

www.champoeg.org/

homepage: homepage: http://republic-of-cascadia.tripod.com/

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/338582.shtml

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 0 replies

Acoustic performers, visual artist, poets, ect

Mojo — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:46:52 GMT

Talented/original bands from our city, poets, Dj's, crafts, live painters, and all that reflects artistic expression. This is and event for the artistic community and for all of those who appreciate it.

The event will be held at Churchills Pub on Saturday April 28th. The outside stage will carry an "open mic format". We want to invite poets, and acoustic performers to come and express themselves. All interested must send us their name so that they can be put on the Performer's Guest List. You will have 15 to 20 minutes (depending on the waiting list) to share your material to the attendees.

We're also looking for live painters, and people in film to participate in the event. There's a big projector/dvd player available. Just send us your name.

Regards,

Nimencia-Jam Life Music
jamlifemusic@nimencia.net

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 0 replies

The Demon in Karl Rove's Head

Argent — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:36:02 GMT

About the picture I just posted....

The photo used came from the web, I didn't do a thing to it, that whole thing is totally real. Wish I could tell you otherwise. Try it yourself, you'll get the same thing.

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 0 replies

KLab9 Call for Contributions

synnovemathe — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 23:56:02 GMT

KLab9 Call for Contributions
From KnowledgeLab
KLab9:Art - Technology, Authorship and Ways of Living
A weekend gathering for collaborative and creative reflection. 5th - 7th October, 2007 tbc.
Institute for Advanced Studies, Lancaster University, North West England.

INTRODUCTION

The Knowledge Lab is an attempt to provide a collective space for anti-capitalist reflection. It is located at the margin of the university, an institution essentially geared towards the production of knowledge as a resource for corporate interest and as justification for particular constellations of power relations.
This knowledge lab will address art and ways of critically thinking about our world. Within this broad region of enquiry, the lab will encompass notions of life and art as a political commitment, the influence art can exert in politics and how political ideas in turn influence art. It will also address new ways of making art and how this relates to technologies and social changes, and the use of art as an anti-capitalist means to change and fight the system.

We hope that the knowledge lab will not merely address, but also show that art can initiate critical thinking in the various guises outlined above. Our expectations, in terms of the event, and its outcome, are that this be a sharing of creative ideas and ideas about creativity. We hope that it will draw together people with a common interest in art and alternative ways of living, but working in different fields. From this collective thinking we hope that people will be incited to realize, or make manifest, some of these ways of living and thinking creatively when they leave: We will learn from each other.

STREAMS

Like previous knowledge labs the day will be divided into four streams, each will take place in a separate room.

STREAM 1: TECHNOLOGY Free software, art spaces and interfaces, hardware, DIY and recycling/reusing.

STREAM 2: WAYS OF LIVING This stream concerns process, moment and performance. It is the political stream where we will consider primarily imaginative resistance and artivism, but also touch on debates surrounding gender issues, community and cultural production, and personal/political. We hope to see papers touching on initiatives in direct democracy; the art of changing that system, and the paradigms of inspiration. We would like to discuss how artivism will change society, possibles networks of artivists, ways of action.

STREAM 3: AUTHORSHIP Copy rights, ownership, patenting, and appropriation. (Creative commons, Copyleft,...)

STREAM 4: THE ART MARKET (new ways of) curating, spaces (physical and virtual) to show art, ways of making money: Marketing, the means of production, market forces and anti-market forces, the art market, and art and ethics.

CONTRIBUTIONS

Each day will be split into two parts. On Saturday and Sunday morning papers will be presented in each of the four streams, each lasting 20-30 minutes. Papers will be followed by a brief question period of 10-15 minutes. The afternoon will be divided into discussion periods in each of the four streams. During the weekend there will also be a separate space for workshops and performances.
There are therefore a variety of ways to contribute to the weekend. See below for details:

ACADEMIC PAPERS

The list of streams is not prescriptive, it simply outlines some of the issues we envisage arising given the general themes.

Please also send papers on other themes, these will be gratefully considered.

Submit an abstract of no more than 500 words. In addition please enclose a brief biography. Try to make this, along with your paper, as accessible as possible.

FACILITATED DISCUSSIONS (INVOLVEMENT AND SKILLS SHARING)

If you have an idea for one of the afternoon discussion topics that links in with one of the four streams then send in a your idea and think about one of the two types of involvement below:

If you'd like to take a more pro-active role during the conference, you might want to ADOPT a session - that is, prepare it in advance (suggest questions, main issues, reading material etc and propose the length of the session), arrive prepared for discussion themselves, attend it, and participate passionately in the debates.

We also need people to FACILITATE sessions - ideally a session should NOT be adopted and facilitated by the same person(s). Consider that facilitators are usually best if experienced in their task. Any which way, please get in touch.

== WORKSHOPS, ARTWORKS, AND PERFORMANCES ==

These will broadly tie in with one of the four streams above. Send a proposal [Max: A single side of A4], elaborate on: What your contribution will be e.g. a workshop, a performance, an artwork. How long you envisage it taking. Do you need any equipment or materials? Do you want to limit the number of participants? If so, how many? What do you hope will be born out of this? How do you propose to arrive at this end?

SATURDAY EVENING

DJ and VJ session: Call for DJs and VJs to send in samples so they might come and contribute to an evening of art in many guises. As well as other music, visual, perfomance, etc artist and Artivist.
Nb. Groups are welcome to contribute workshops, materials for display and/or distribution.

INFORMATION

Anybody is welcome to attend the weekend, get involved in the discussions, and take part in the workshops. HOWEVER, YOU NEED TO REGISTER TO ATTEND AS THE EVENT IS LIMITED TO 100 PEOPLE, SO PLEASE GET IN TOUCH: klab9art@googlemail.com

DEADLINE FOR ALL PROPOSALS May 1st 2007

CONTACT klab9art@googlemail.com
Amy, Ana and Synnove

COSTS AND PRACTICALITIES

Unwaged persons: free Unfunded students/low-paid persons: donation Funded students/Lancaster university staff: £20 Academics/waged persons: £65 This contribution is for the whole weekend and includes Friday and Saturday dinner, Saturday and Sunday breakfast and lunch. All food will be vegan and predominantly organic.

ACCOMODATION

Shared accommodation is available on the floor of the very spacious and friendly Quakers' Meeting House, it is free, but please bring sleeping bag and mat. Get in touch if you have any special requirements, and again, please let us know in advance if you're bringing a child.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Visit respectively the respective sites for the previous knowledgelabs:
http://knowledgelab.org.uk/wiki/FirstKnowledgeLab
http://knowledgelab.org.uk/wiki/SecondKnowledgeLab
http://knowledgelab.org.uk/wiki/ThirdKnowledgeLab

About Klab9:Art
http://knowledgelab.org.uk/wiki/KLab9

posted in ! Art Against Bush ! - 0 replies